U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case IPR2017-00210
`Patent 7,116,710
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case IPR2017-00210
`Patent 7,116,710
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On July 31, 2017, the Board issued an order granting Petitioner’s request to
`
`file this motion. Paper 21. Petitioner respectfully moves to submit Exhibits
`
`1027–1041 as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a).
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–8, 11–17, 19–22, and
`
`24–33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710 (the “’710 patent”) on June 30, 2017 on multiple
`
`grounds, including that claims 1 and 3 are invalid as anticipated by Frey1 and that
`
`claims 1–8, 11–17, 19–22, and 24–33 are obvious over Frey in combination with
`
`Divsalar2 and other prior art references. Patent Owner challenged the prior art status
`
`of Frey and Divsalar in its Preliminary Response. Petitioner now seeks permission
`
`to file supplemental information to rebut Patent Owner’s challenges and establish
`
`the prior art status of Frey and Divsalar. The supplemental information Petitioner
`
`requests authorization to submit takes the form of fifteen exhibits—consisting of
`
`affidavits, declarations, deposition transcripts, library records, a purchase order,
`
`1 Brendan J. Frey and David J.C. MacKay, Irregular Turbocodes, PROCEEDINGS OF
`
`THE 37TH ALLERTON CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATION, CONTROL, AND
`
`COMPUTING (1999) at 241–248 (Ex.1002, “Frey).
`
`2 Dariush Divsalar, et al., Coding Theorems for “Turbo-Like” Codes, PROCEEDINGS
`
`OF THE 36TH ALLERTON CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATION, CONTROL, AND
`
`COMPUTING, Sept. 23–25, 1998, at 201–209 (Ex. 1003, “Divsalar”).
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`shipping information, and other publications—that establish (1) the public
`
`accessibility of Frey no later than March 20, 2000, and (2) the public accessibility of
`
`Divsalar no later than June 3, 1999.
`
`Petitioner served the supplemental information on Patent Owner on July 14,
`
`2017, and requested authorization to file this motion shortly thereafter. Patent
`
`Owner will have had over two months to consider the supplemental information
`
`before it must file its Patent Owner’s response. As a result, Petitioner’s submission
`
`of supplemental information will neither prejudice Patent Owner nor impact the
`
`Board’s ability to complete the inter partes review in a timely manner. Petitioner’s
`
`motion should therefore be granted.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Legal Standard
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a), a party may submit supplemental information if:
`
`(1) its “request for the authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental
`
`information is made within one month of the date the trial is instituted;” and
`
`(2) “[t]he supplemental information [is] relevant to a claim for which the trial has
`
`been instituted.”
`
`The Board has discretion to grant a motion to submit supplemental
`
`information. South-Tek Sys., LLC v. Eng’rd Corrosion Solutions, LLC,
`
`No. IPR2016-01351, 2017 WL 2609329, at *1 (PTAB June 15, 2017). In exercising
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`its discretion, the Board’s “guiding principle . . . is to ensure efficient administration
`
`of the Office and the ability of the Office to complete IPR proceedings in a timely
`
`manner.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.1(b) (requiring the Board to construe its rules “to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding”).
`
`It is Petitioner’s burden to prove it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.20(c).
`
`B.
`Petitioner Is Entitled To Relief Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a).
`Petitioner should be permitted to submit Exhibits 1027–1041 as supplemental
`
`information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a). Petitioner requested authorization to
`
`submit its motion on July 23, 2017, and in response to that request the Board held a
`
`conference call on July 26, 2017, less than one month after the Board instituted inter
`
`partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)(1).
`
`Further, each exhibit supports the prior art status of Frey and/or Divsalar—the
`
`two primary pieces of prior art upon which the Board instituted inter partes
`
`review—and are therefore “relevant to a claim for which the [inter partes review]
`
`has been instituted.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)(2); see South-Tek Sys., 2017 WL
`
`2609329, at *2 (“Based on the above analysis, we determine that Exhibits 1028 and
`
`1029 are relevant to this proceeding. They provide a more complete record of the
`
`public availability of the EPRI reference.”); Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`Networks, Inc., No. IPR2013-00369, at 3 (PTAB Feb. 5, 2014) (Paper 37)
`
`(“Evidence that allegedly confirms the public accessibility of references that serve
`
`as the basis of the grounds of unpatentability authorized in this proceeding is
`
`relevant to the claims . . . for which this trial was instituted.”).
`
`Patent Owner challenged the prior art status of Frey and Divsalar in its
`
`Preliminary Response. See Paper 17 at 8–13. As detailed below, Exhibits
`
`1027–1041 counter Patent Owner’s argument and establish the public accessibility
`
`of Frey no later than March 20, 2000 and Divsalar no later than June 3, 1999:
`
`1.
`
`Library Records and Related Declarations. Exhibits 1027–1031
`
`establish the dates by which Divsalar and Frey were published and/or publicly
`
`available at certain libraries.
`
` Exhibits 1027 and 1028 are library records from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory3
`
`indicating that the 37th Annual Allerton Conference Proceedings—in which
`
`Frey appeared—was published in 1999.
`
` Exhibit 1029 is a library record indicating that the 36th Annual Allerton
`
`Conference Proceedings—in which Divsalar appeared—was published by June
`
`
`3 Jet Propulsion Laboratory is a division of Patent Owner. See JET PROPULSION LAB
`
`| CALTECH, http://www.caltech.edu/content/jet-propulsion-laboratory (last visited
`
`Aug. 4, 2017).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`
`3, 1999.
`
` Exhibit 1030 is the July 14, 2017, declaration of library expert Theodore A. Fons,
`
`which explains how to interpret the above library records (i.e., Exhibits
`
`1027–1029) and explains why they indicate that (1) Frey was published in 1999
`
`and (2) Divsalar was published by June 3, 1999. Ex. 1030 at ¶¶ 20, 27.
`
` Exhibit 1031 is the affidavit of Pamela Stansbury, an employee in the Original
`
`Cataloging Unit of the Cornell University Library. Ex. 1031 at ¶ 1.
`
`Ms. Stansbury states that Frey “w[as] publicly available at the Cornell University
`
`Library as of March 20, 2000.” Id. at ¶ 4. This rebuts Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that the date of the library stamp is 2008 rather than 2000. See Paper 17 at 10.
`
`2.
`
`36th and 37th Allerton Conferences. Exhibits 1032–1036 establish the
`
`timelines associated with the 36th and 37th Allerton Conferences—at which
`
`Divsalar and Frey were presented—and the subsequent publication of the
`
`conference proceedings—in which Divsalar and Frey were published.
`
` Exhibits 1032, 1033, and 1034 are affidavits from Dr. Bruce Hajek, Dr. Tamer
`
`Basar, and Dr. Ramavarapu Sreenivas. Dr. Hajek is a six-time co-chair of the
`
`Allerton Conference, including the 36th Allerton Conference (at which Divsalar
`
`was presented) and the 37th Allerton Conference (at which Frey was presented),
`
`Ex. 1032 at ¶ 5; Dr. Basar is a six-time co-chair of the Allerton Conference,
`
`including the 36th Allerton Conference (at which Divsalar was presented),
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`Ex. 1033 at ¶ 5; Dr. Sreenivas is a two-time co-chair of the Allerton Conference,
`
`including the 37th Allerton Conference (at which Frey was presented), Ex. 1034
`
`at ¶ 5. Each confirms that (1) the Allerton Conference was well known to those
`
`of skill in the art, well attended by those of skill in the art, and open to the public
`
`for a fee, Ex. 1032 at ¶ 7, Ex. 1033 at ¶ 7, Ex. 1034 at ¶ 7; and (2) copies of the
`
`Allerton Conference Proceedings would have been shipped to conference
`
`attendees no later than the February following the conference—i.e., February
`
`1999 for the 36th Allerton Conference Proceedings in which Divsalar appeared
`
`and February 2000 for the 37th Allerton Conference Proceedings in which Frey
`
`appeared, Ex. 1032 at ¶ 9, Ex. 1033 at ¶ 9, Ex. 1034 at ¶ 9. Drs. Hajek, Basar, and
`
`Sreenivas attach to their affidavits a purchase order for the 37th Allerton
`
`Conference Proceedings dated December 8, 1999.4 Each states that the
`
`Proceedings would have shipped approximately ten weeks after the date of the
`
`purchase order—i.e., on or around February 16, 2000. Ex. 1032 at ¶ 12, Ex. 1033
`
`at ¶ 12, Ex. 1034 at ¶ 12. Dr. Basar further states that “it is quite likely that [he]
`
`received [his] copy of the Conference Proceedings for the 36th Annual Allerton
`
`Conference [which includes Divsalar] in February 1999, and [he] received [his]
`
`copy of the Conference Proceedings for the 37th Annual Allerton Conference
`
`
`4 The purchase order is also submitted as Exhibit 1037.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`[which includes Frey] in February 2000.” Ex. 1033 at ¶ 9.
`
` Exhibit 1035 is the July 14, 2017, declaration Dr. Brendan Frey, co-author of the
`
`Frey reference. Dr. Frey confirms that (1) he presented the work described in
`
`Frey at the 37th Allerton Conference—a public conference—on September 22,
`
`1999, Ex. 1035 at ¶ 16; (2) Frey was publicly available on the website of
`
`Dr. Frey’s co-author, Dr. David MacKay, by October 1999, id. at ¶ 18; and
`
`(3) Frey was published in the 37th Allerton Conference Proceedings, which Dr.
`
`Frey received in January or February 2000, id. at ¶ 17.
`
` Exhibit 1036 is a screen capture of an archived version of the website for the 37th
`
`Annual Allerton Conference—at which Frey was presented—dated September 9,
`
`1999. The website states that copies of “[f]ull camera-ready versions of accepted
`
`papers [e.g., Frey] will be due the last day of the Conference”—i.e., September
`
`24, 1999.
`
`3.
`
`37th Allerton Conference Proceedings. Exhibits 1037–1038 establish
`
`the dates by which the 37th Allerton Conference Proceedings were ordered and
`
`shipped.
`
` Exhibit 1037 is a purchase order for the 37th Allerton Conference Proceedings
`
`dated December 8, 1999.
`
` Exhibit 1038 is a bill of lading for the 37th Annual Allerton Conference
`
`Proceedings with a ship date of February 21, 2000.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`4. Witness Testimony. Exhibits 1039–1040 are excerpts from deposition
`
`transcripts of Patent Owner’s experts in the litigation The California Institute of
`
`Technology v. Hughes Communications, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-07245 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`(“Hughes Litigation”), in which the witnesses testified regarding the public
`
`availability of Divsalar and Frey.
`
` Exhibit 1039 is an excerpt from the deposition of Dr. Steven Wicker in the
`
`Hughes Litigation. Dr. Wicker testified that he was “reasonably sure that the
`
`irregular turbo codes paper, Frey ’99, was indeed published as part of the
`
`proceedings of the Allerton conference.” Ex. 1039 at 157:2–5.
`
` Exhibit 1040 is an excerpt from the deposition of Dr. Rüdiger Urbanke in the
`
`Hughes Litigation. Dr. Urbanke suggested that people in the field were looking
`
`at Divsalar in 1999. Ex. 1040 at 168:4–21.
`
`5.
`
`Publication. Exhibit 1041 is a copy of the textbook Forward Error
`
`Correction Based on Algebraic-Geometric Theory by Jafar A. Alzubi, Omar A.
`
`Alzubi, and Thomas M. Chen. The book describes Frey as presented “[i]n 1999,”
`
`Ex. 1041 at 36, and cites Frey as a 1999 publication, id. at 39.
`
`Because Exhibits 1027–1041 establish the public accessibility of Frey no later than
`
`March 20, 2000, and the public accessibility of Divsalar no later than June 3, 1999,
`
`the exhibits support the prior art status of those references. Each exhibit is therefore
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`“relevant to a claim for which the [inter partes review] has been instituted.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123(a)(2).
`
`The Board consistently grants motions to submit supplemental information
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) where, as here, the supplemental information supports
`
`the prior art status of a reference upon which the Board instituted inter partes
`
`review. See, e.g., South-Tek Sys., 2017 WL 2609329; Smart Microwave Sensor
`
`GmbH v. Wavetronix LLC, No. IPR2016-00488, 2016 WL 8969973 (PTAB Aug.
`
`26, 2016); Creston Elecs. Inc. v. Intuitive Building Controls, Inc.,
`
`No. IPR2015-01379 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2016) (Paper 27); Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna
`
`Elecs., Inc., No. IPR2014-01204 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2015) (Paper 26); Palo Alto
`
`Networks, No. IPR2013-00369; see also TCL Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM
`
`Ericsson, Nos. IPR2015-01584, -01600, 2016 WL 8969226 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2016)
`
`(granting Petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information to support prior
`
`art status of reference under stricter 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) standard); Biomarin
`
`Pharm. Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’Ship, Nos. IPR2013-00534,
`
`-00537 (PTAB Jan. 7, 2015) (Paper 80) (same).
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s submission of Exhibits 1027–1041 will in no way
`prejudice Patent Owner or negatively impact the Board’s ability to
`complete the inter partes review in a timely manner.
`The Board exercises its discretion and grants motions to submit supplemental
`
`
`
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) where such action promotes “‘the just,
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution’ [of the] proceeding.” Creston Elecs., No.
`
`IPR2015-01379, at 3 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)). This is just such an instance.
`
`
`
`Petitioner submitted its Petition on November 15, 2016. It included copies of
`
`Frey and Divsalar as attachments to the Petition. See Exs. 1002, 1003. In view of a
`
`previous Board decision denying the prior art status of Frey,5 Petitioner also
`
`attached a date-stamped copy of the Table of Contents from the Proceedings of the
`
`Thirty-Seventh Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and
`
`Computing establishing the public accessibility of Frey no later than March 20,
`
`2000. See Ex. 1015. Petitioner had no reason to believe that any information
`
`beyond what was included in the Petition would be necessary to establish the prior
`
`art status of Frey and Divsalar.6 The need for the information Petitioner now seeks
`
`permission to submit did not become apparent until Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, in which Patent Owner challenged the prior art status of Frey and
`
`Divsalar. See Paper 17 at 8–13.
`
`
`5 Hughes Network Sys., LLC v. California Inst. of Tech., No. IPR2015-00067, at
`
`8–11 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015).
`
`6 Indeed, the prior art status of Divsalar had already been confirmed in a prior Board
`
`decision. See Hughes Network Sys., LLC v. California Inst. of Tech.,
`
`No. IPR2015-00059, at 13–22 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2016) (Paper 42).
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`Petitioner acted promptly to address Patent Owner’s arguments. On July 14,
`
`
`
`2017—only two weeks after the Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper 18) and
`
`Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence (Paper 20)—Petitioner served
`
`Patent Owner with Exhibits 1027–1041. Petitioner asked Patent Owner to consent
`
`to the submission of these exhibits as supplemental information or, in the alternative,
`
`to meet and confer on the issue. When Patent Owner indicated its objection on July
`
`21, 2017, Petitioner requested authorization to file this motion.7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s submission of Exhibits 1027–1041 at this stage of the
`
`proceedings will not prejudice Patent Owner nor impact the schedule of this inter
`
`partes review. See South-Tek Sys., 2017 WL 2609329, at *1. Patent Owner
`
`dedicated less than six pages of its forty-three-page Preliminary Response to the
`
`prior art status of Frey and Divsalar. Paper 17 at 8–13. Moreover, Petitioner served
`
`Patent Owner with Exhibits 1027–1041 on July 14, 2017, over two months before
`
`Patent Owner’s Response is due and before Patent Owner had taken any discovery
`
`in this proceeding. Patent Owner has had and will have ample opportunity to
`
`address the reasons it believes the claims of the ’710 patent are valid over Frey and
`
`
`7 The parties met and conferred on July 28 but were unable to narrow the issues
`
`presented by this motion.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`Divsalar, if any. As such, no change to the schedule is necessary, and the Board can
`
`complete this inter partes review within the statutorily-mandated eighteen months.
`
`That Petitioner filed an Updated Exhibit List with replacement exhibits in this
`
`proceeding should have no impact on the Board’s analysis of this motion. See Paper
`
`14. As explained in Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Submit Replacement
`
`Exhibits, the replacement exhibits correct certain clerical errors. See Paper 13 at
`
`3–7. They were not supplemental information and they did not respond to Patent
`
`Owner’s challenge. Nor could they have. Patent Owner did not challenge the prior
`
`art status of Frey and Divsalar until April 3, 2017, over one month after Petitioner
`
`filed the replacement exhibits. Petitioner’s submission of its Updated Exhibit List
`
`is therefore irrelevant.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the above reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant its
`
`Motion to Submit Supplemental Information Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.123(a).
`
`
`
`Dated: August 4, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Richard Goldenberg/
`Richard A. Goldenberg (No. 38,895)
`Dominic A. Massa (No. 44,905)
`Brian M. Seeve (No. 71,721)
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on August 4, 2017, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`
`INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) was served via electronic
`
`mail upon the following attorneys of record:
`
`Michael Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`Matthew Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Richard Torczon (rtorczon@wsgr.com)
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com)
`Todd M. Briggs (toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com)
`
`
`
`/Brian Seeve/
`Brian Seeve (No. 71,721)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
